Posted on 10/07/2010 5:29:08 AM PDT by Kartographer
The judge should be sued for every dime he has.
This will result in the judge no longer being a judge and the attorney a tad wealthier.
The judge can control behavior in his court that occurs in his presence. I was in court once a few days after the judge’s former court reporter died and the judge asked all the lawyers in court that morning to stand silently for a minute in honor of that court reporter. I suspect that if any lawyer there had refused to stand for some reason he might have sent us off to jail for a few hours.
If saying the pledge was customary in that court then the judge would have to maintain control of his courtroom if someone openly defied his idea of decorum.
And even then it didn't include the "under God" part. That wasn't inserted until the 1950s. It is that part that some find objectionable, and while that shouldn't be used to stop recitation of the Pledge in general, it is blatantly unconstitutional to force someone to make a pledge including "under God" against his will.
That's pretty much exactly how it works. He may not even have to take the bar exam if the state bar accepts his UK credentials. An officer of the court is not necessarily a position of trust under the Constitution as an officer of the military or other such position.
That's different than an oath that is made vain (1) by having people parrot it day after day, (2) forcing it upon people who have no need for such a serious oath -- for example children in a classroom, (3) requiring it for a trivial, mundane or regular duty, (4) making an improperly worded oath -- a real oath is very carefully worded, (5) making the oath to an object or person, rather than to an ideal, or to G-d.
The Pledge of Allegiance is now and was created as a socialist indoctrination. Look it up. Francis Bellamy, Utopian Christian Socialist.
It is a bad oath in many ways. I never say it. I'll stand when it is said, and even maybe remove my hat -- but that is all. And that I only do to avoid disrupting a public meeting. If someone objected to my not saying it, I'd have to go further and refuse to stand, or remove my hat.
Judges do not have absolute authority to dictate what is decorum or proper behavior.
I’ll go by the example our Founders knew — the Trial of William Penn in London, and his hat. The Judge ordered its removal as a matter of decorum and he refused.
Amen.
I am not saying that the judge in the courtroom has absolute authority. His decision is subject to review. What I am saying is that he has the authority to rule on actions that take place in his presence as being in contempt of court. It is entirely possible that an appellate court will determine that not reciting the pledge is not acting in contempt of court. But until that determination is made, the judge has the authority to determine what is proper courtroom decorum. For example, when I started practicing there was a dress code for court. Certainly one can argue about what does and does not constitute a violation of the dress code, but I don’t remember anyone disputing that the court had the authority to issue the rule regarding proper attire in court.
Chancellor, chancery, is this some story out of medieval Europe with these words?
I have. Rejected the Judge's order to remove my hat. Boy did he rail at me and mock me. But in the end he was afraid to do anything else. He knew I was no pushover. Had he done so?
I kinda think his career as a Judge would have ended. I'm not a man to trifle with. No Freeper should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.